Corrections
This is the permanent record of things this site published that were wrong. Each entry gives the wording as it stood, what it says now, why the original was wrong, and what a reader who relied on it would have got wrong. Nothing is removed from this page.
A publisher that fixes its mistakes quietly looks exactly like one that has never made any. Both read clean. The difference only shows when a reader catches something and finds no evidence that anything is ever corrected — and at that point every other page becomes suspect too. So this page exists, it is dated, and it stays.
16 of the entries below are this site correcting its own cost data — its provenance, its internal consistency, or how it was labelled. Those are the ones a business has the most reason to bury, which is precisely why they are the ones that decide whether the rest of this page means anything.
Found something that may be wrong?
Send us the page URL and the information you believe should be reviewed. A source is enormously helpful but not required — “this doesn't match what my inspector told me” is a perfectly good reason for us to go and check.
Report a possible error Uses the same contact form as everything else. Please include the page address and the specific figure or statement.
- What happens next. We check it against a primary source. If it is wrong, the page is fixed and an entry is added here with the date.
- If we were right. We will say so, and where the disagreement is genuinely unsettled, we would rather narrow the claim on the page than defend a confident version of it. One entry below is exactly that.
- We are not the contractor. This site refers homeowners to independent licensed contractors and does not perform crawl space work. A dispute about work done at your home is between you and the contractor — though we do want to know about it.
What goes on this page, and what does not
This is a corrections ledger, not a changelog. A ledger padded with typo fixes and CSS tweaks hides the entries that matter, so the standard is published here rather than asserted.
Recorded here
- Factual errors — a statement about the world that was wrong.
- Incorrect statements of what a code, agency or licensing body requires.
- Published price or cost-model figures that were wrong, or that disagreed with each other across this site.
- Sourcing failures — a citation to a superseded document, or a claim about where information came from that the evidence did not support.
- Material methodology changes, including changes to how a figure is classified even when the figure itself did not move.
- Material omissions, where leaving something out made a published recommendation misleading.
Not recorded here
- Typos, grammar and wording changes that do not alter meaning.
- Design, layout, styling and image changes.
- New pages, new sections and internal link changes.
- Code refactors and build tooling.
- Routine updates that add information without contradicting anything previously published.
How far back this goes. This ledger was compiled on 28 August 2026 by reading back through the site’s full revision history, and it runs from the earliest substantive correction that history records — 9 August 2026. Corrections made before the site went live, while pages were still drafts, are not included: nothing had been published, so nobody could have relied on it.
At a glance
- Factual error
- 12
- Regulatory statement
- 20
- Price or model figure
- 9
- Sourcing or provenance
- 13
- Methodology change
- 2
Pages that have carried a correction: /, /about/, /contact/, /contractors/, /corrections/, /cost/, /cost/encapsulation/, /cost/methodology/, /cost/sump-pump/, /cost/vapor-barrier/, /cost/waterproofing/, /data/, /data/portland-crawlspace-cost-index/, /data/portland-metro-climate-housing/, /disclaimer/, /editorial-policy/, /oregon/, /oregon/2026-crawl-space-code-changes/, /oregon/contractor-license-verification/, /privacy/, /problems/, /quote/, /resources/, /resources/buying-house-crawl-space-problems/, /resources/closed-vs-vented-crawl-space/, /resources/cold-floors-crawl-space/, /resources/crawl-space-maintenance-checklist/, /resources/crawl-space-problems-home-inspection/, /resources/diy-vs-professional-crawl-space-work/, /resources/efflorescence-in-crawl-space/, /resources/encapsulation-worth-it-oregon/, /resources/energy-trust-rebate-2026/, /resources/fha-va-crawl-space-requirements/, /resources/flooded-crawl-space-what-to-do/, /resources/high-humidity-crawl-space/, /resources/how-long-encapsulation-lasts/, /resources/mold-in-crawl-space/, /resources/musty-smell-crawl-space/, /resources/rodents-in-crawl-space/, /resources/sagging-bouncy-floors-crawl-space/, /resources/selling-house-crawl-space-repair/, /resources/standing-water-in-crawl-space/, /resources/sump-pump-running-constantly/, /resources/vapor-barrier-vs-encapsulation/, /resources/water-in-crawlspace-after-rain/, /resources/wood-rot-in-crawl-space/, /service-areas/, /service-areas/aloha/, /service-areas/battle-ground/, /service-areas/beaverton/, /service-areas/camas/, /service-areas/clackamas/, /service-areas/gresham/, /service-areas/happy-valley/, /service-areas/hillsboro/, /service-areas/lake-oswego/, /service-areas/milwaukie/, /service-areas/oregon-city/, /service-areas/portland/, /service-areas/sherwood/, /service-areas/tigard/, /service-areas/tualatin/, /service-areas/vancouver-wa/, /service-areas/washougal/, /service-areas/west-linn/, /service-areas/wilsonville/, /solutions/, /solutions/basement-waterproofing/, /solutions/crawl-space-inspection/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/drainage/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/structural-repair/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/, /solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/, /solutions/foundation-waterproofing/, /terms/, /thank-you/, /tools/bid-checker/, /tools/cost-calculator/
Definitions, so the categories above are not doing quiet work:
- Factual error
- A statement about the physical world — a moisture threshold, a climate figure, a material property — that was wrong, whatever its origin.
- Regulatory statement
- A misstatement of what Oregon code, a state agency or a licensing body actually requires. The costliest kind on a site like this, because a reader may check a contractor’s bid against it.
- Price or model figure
- A published dollar figure that was wrong, or two pages of this site quoting different numbers for the same work.
- Sourcing or provenance
- A claim about where information came from that the evidence did not support — including citing a superseded document, and including this site overstating the provenance of its own data.
- Methodology change
- A change in how a published figure is produced, classified or labelled, where the figure itself may not have moved but what it claims to be did.
The ledger
Newest first. Each entry has a stable link, so a correction can be cited directly.
- Regulatory statement #
Three pages gave Oregon’s current code a dehumidifier sizing rule of 70 pints a day per 1,000 square feet. That was the superseded 2021 edition’s figure; the 2023 ORSC sizes dehumidification to the manufacturer’s specifications.
Pages:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/cost/encapsulation/,/oregon/2026-crawl-space-code-changes/What it said
“or dehumidification sized to remove 70 pints per day for every 1,000 square feet of floor area” (the encapsulation page, in its body and in the FAQ “Does encapsulation require a dehumidifier?”); “dehumidification sized to remove 70 pints per day per 1,000 square feet of floor area” (/cost/encapsulation/); and “dehumidification sized to 70 pints a day per 1,000 square feet” (the 2026 code tracker’s summary list).
What it says now
Each now gives the adopted wording of 2023 ORSC R408.3 item 2.3: dehumidification sized in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The two alternatives at 1 cfm per 50 square feet, and everything else on the three pages, are unchanged.
- Why the original was wrong
- The figure entered the encapsulation page through the correction 2026-08-20-dehumidifier-sizing, which rightly removed a cubic-footage basis but replaced it with this number and cited the 2023 ORSC for it; the cost page carried it from the same day and the tracker from 2026-09-03. The 2023 ORSC, in effect since October 1, 2023, does not contain it: the adopted text and the Building Codes Division’s summary of amendments (page 96) both size dehumidification to the manufacturer’s specifications. The 70-pint wording is the 2021 ORSC’s, carried over from the 2018 model code, so the earlier correction quoted a retired edition.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- Anyone checking a quoted dehumidifier against Oregon code was given a capacity the code does not set, and could have rejected a unit the manufacturer had sized correctly for the space, or accepted one on a figure the building department does not apply.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code — Adoption: Summary of amendments to the base code (23orsc-summaryofamendments.pdf, 205 pages)
- Oregon Building Codes Division (published by the International Code Council), 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, Section R408 Under-Floor Space (2021 edition, based on the 2018 IRC)
- International Code Council, 2018 International Residential Code, Section R408 Under-Floor Space (2018 IRC, R408.3 item 2.4)
- Regulatory statement #
The strip under the heading of 64 pages, the four Washington city pages among them, sent every reader to Oregon’s licence lookup alone, and so did the terms page. Six sentences about Energy Trust incentives said a contractor who is not a trade ally needs a current Oregon CCB licence, without the Washington half of the same rule.
Pages:
/,/cost/,/cost/encapsulation/,/cost/sump-pump/,/cost/vapor-barrier/,/cost/waterproofing/,/oregon/contractor-license-verification/,/problems/,/resources/buying-house-crawl-space-problems/,/resources/closed-vs-vented-crawl-space/,/resources/cold-floors-crawl-space/,/resources/crawl-space-maintenance-checklist/,/resources/crawl-space-problems-home-inspection/,/resources/diy-vs-professional-crawl-space-work/,/resources/efflorescence-in-crawl-space/,/resources/encapsulation-worth-it-oregon/,/resources/energy-trust-rebate-2026/,/resources/fha-va-crawl-space-requirements/,/resources/flooded-crawl-space-what-to-do/,/resources/high-humidity-crawl-space/,/resources/how-long-encapsulation-lasts/,/resources/mold-in-crawl-space/,/resources/musty-smell-crawl-space/,/resources/rodents-in-crawl-space/,/resources/sagging-bouncy-floors-crawl-space/,/resources/selling-house-crawl-space-repair/,/resources/standing-water-in-crawl-space/,/resources/sump-pump-running-constantly/,/resources/vapor-barrier-vs-encapsulation/,/resources/water-in-crawlspace-after-rain/,/resources/wood-rot-in-crawl-space/,/service-areas/,/service-areas/aloha/,/service-areas/battle-ground/,/service-areas/beaverton/,/service-areas/camas/,/service-areas/clackamas/,/service-areas/gresham/,/service-areas/happy-valley/,/service-areas/hillsboro/,/service-areas/lake-oswego/,/service-areas/milwaukie/,/service-areas/oregon-city/,/service-areas/portland/,/service-areas/sherwood/,/service-areas/tigard/,/service-areas/tualatin/,/service-areas/vancouver-wa/,/service-areas/washougal/,/service-areas/west-linn/,/service-areas/wilsonville/,/solutions/,/solutions/basement-waterproofing/,/solutions/crawl-space-inspection/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/drainage/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/structural-repair/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/,/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/,/terms/What it said
The strip under the page heading: “Verify any contractor’s license at oregon.gov/ccb”, linked to Oregon’s Construction Contractors Board. The terms page: “Verify any contractor’s license at oregon.gov/ccb before signing any agreement.” On the cost guide, the crawl space repair hub and the insulation page: “a contractor with a current Oregon CCB license can install eligible work”. On the encapsulation page: “a contractor who is not a trade ally can install eligible work if they hold a current Oregon CCB license”.
What it says now
The strip now reads “Verify any contractor’s license: Oregon CCB or Washington L&I”, with a link to each state’s lookup. The terms page gives both lookups, oregon.gov/ccb and secure.lni.wa.gov/verify, as the footer and the disclaimer do. The Energy Trust sentences now say “a current Oregon CCB license, or an active Washington contractor license for a Washington project”.
- Why the original was wrong
- A contractor working in Vancouver, Camas, Washougal or Battle Ground is registered with Washington L&I and does not appear in Oregon’s register, so Oregon’s lookup cannot confirm one. Energy Trust’s incentive sheet states the installer rule for both states: a contractor who is not a trade ally must hold a current Oregon CCB license for projects in Oregon or an active Washington contractor’s license for projects in Washington. The licence wording corrected earlier the same day covered the request form, the footer and the page introductions; it did not reach this strip, the terms page or these six sentences.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A Clark County reader was sent to a register in which their contractor would not be found, on the pages written for their own city. A Washington homeowner reading about the incentive could have concluded that an Oregon licence is what qualifies the installer of a Washington project.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Construction Contractors Board, CCB License Search
- Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Verify a Contractor, Tradesperson or Business
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- Sourcing or provenance #
The homepage’s opening paragraph and the list beside its call-to-action still said the service reaches the “entire Portland metro”, the claim taken out of the shared call-to-action and the city cards earlier the same day. This site does not verify that a contractor is available for every address in the metro.
Page:
/What it said
The opening paragraph: “Encapsulation, waterproofing, vapor barriers, drainage, and insulation across the entire Portland metro.” The third item in the list under the call-to-action: “Entire Portland metro”.
What it says now
The opening paragraph now reads “Encapsulation, waterproofing, vapor barriers, drainage, and insulation for homes in the Portland metro.” The list item now reads “No-obligation quote”.
- Why the original was wrong
- A request made here goes to an independent contractor who covers the ZIP entered, and the request form asks for the ZIP before anything else. This site holds no record showing that every address in the metro has a contractor available, which is the reason given when the same words were taken out of the guide call-to-action and the city cards on 2 October. The search run afterwards to confirm that removal is what found these two lines.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader anywhere in the metro could have expected a contractor to be available for their address on this site’s word alone, before the form had checked their ZIP.
- Regulatory statement #
The request form, the footer on every page, the disclaimer and about twenty sentences on service pages and guides described the contractor who would do the work as Oregon CCB-licensed, and gave only Oregon’s licence lookup. Four of the nineteen service areas are in Washington, where the contractor has to be registered with Washington L&I.
Pages:
/,/about/,/contact/,/contractors/,/corrections/,/cost/,/cost/encapsulation/,/cost/methodology/,/cost/sump-pump/,/cost/vapor-barrier/,/cost/waterproofing/,/data/,/data/portland-crawlspace-cost-index/,/data/portland-metro-climate-housing/,/editorial-policy/,/oregon/,/oregon/2026-crawl-space-code-changes/,/oregon/contractor-license-verification/,/problems/,/quote/,/resources/,/resources/buying-house-crawl-space-problems/,/resources/closed-vs-vented-crawl-space/,/resources/cold-floors-crawl-space/,/resources/crawl-space-maintenance-checklist/,/resources/crawl-space-problems-home-inspection/,/resources/diy-vs-professional-crawl-space-work/,/resources/efflorescence-in-crawl-space/,/resources/encapsulation-worth-it-oregon/,/resources/energy-trust-rebate-2026/,/resources/fha-va-crawl-space-requirements/,/resources/flooded-crawl-space-what-to-do/,/resources/high-humidity-crawl-space/,/resources/how-long-encapsulation-lasts/,/resources/mold-in-crawl-space/,/resources/musty-smell-crawl-space/,/resources/rodents-in-crawl-space/,/resources/sagging-bouncy-floors-crawl-space/,/resources/selling-house-crawl-space-repair/,/resources/standing-water-in-crawl-space/,/resources/sump-pump-running-constantly/,/resources/vapor-barrier-vs-encapsulation/,/resources/water-in-crawlspace-after-rain/,/resources/wood-rot-in-crawl-space/,/service-areas/,/service-areas/aloha/,/service-areas/battle-ground/,/service-areas/beaverton/,/service-areas/camas/,/service-areas/clackamas/,/service-areas/gresham/,/service-areas/happy-valley/,/service-areas/hillsboro/,/service-areas/lake-oswego/,/service-areas/milwaukie/,/service-areas/oregon-city/,/service-areas/portland/,/service-areas/sherwood/,/service-areas/tigard/,/service-areas/tualatin/,/service-areas/vancouver-wa/,/service-areas/washougal/,/service-areas/west-linn/,/service-areas/wilsonville/,/solutions/,/solutions/basement-waterproofing/,/solutions/crawl-space-inspection/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/drainage/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/structural-repair/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/,/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/,/tools/bid-checker/,/tools/cost-calculator/,/privacy/,/terms/,/disclaimer/,/thank-you/What it said
The request form’s subtitle: “Connects you with a licensed Oregon CCB contractor in your area.” Its consent line: “Independent CCB-licensed contractors perform all work.” Its confirmation: “All work is performed by independent CCB-licensed contractors.” The footer on every page and the disclaimer: “the independent third-party CCB-licensed contractor(s) we refer you to. Verify any contractor’s CCB license status at oregon.gov/ccb before signing a contract.” The homepage’s opening: “Licensed Oregon CCB contractors, free in-home inspections, no-pressure quotes.” Service-page introductions such as “Installed by licensed Oregon CCB contractors with a free in-home inspection”, and guide closings such as “A free in-home inspection from a licensed Oregon CCB contractor costs nothing”.
What it says now
The form, its consent line and its confirmation now say “Oregon CCB or Washington L&I”. The footer and the disclaimer say the contractor is licensed by the Oregon CCB or, for work in Washington, by Washington L&I, and give both lookups: oregon.gov/ccb and secure.lni.wa.gov/verify. The homepage and service-page introductions name both, and the guide closings say “a licensed local contractor”. The statement that this site is not itself a licensed Oregon CCB contractor is unchanged.
- Why the original was wrong
- Oregon’s Construction Contractors Board licenses contractors for work in Oregon. Work in Vancouver, Camas, Washougal and Battle Ground is done under a Washington L&I registration, and an Oregon licence does not carry across the river, which this site’s own licence guide and code tracker already said. These sentences predate the Washington service areas and were never brought into line; the calls to action and the service-page sidebar were corrected earlier the same day.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner in Clark County was told, at the point of agreeing to be contacted, that an Oregon-licensed contractor would do the work, and was sent to Oregon’s lookup to check a contractor who would not appear there. A reader who relied on that could have accepted an Oregon licence number as proof for a Washington job.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Construction Contractors Board, CCB License Search
- Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Verify a Contractor, Tradesperson or Business
- Regulatory statement #
The 2026 code tracker and six other pages still described Oregon’s 2026 residential code as unadopted two days after it took effect, and the tracker had said since August 28 that no rulemaking hearing notice was listed and that no board outcome had been published. The hearing was held on August 18, the notice records the board’s approvals, and the adopting rule was filed on September 30, effective October 1, 2026.
Pages:
/oregon/2026-crawl-space-code-changes/,/oregon/,/resources/closed-vs-vented-crawl-space/,/resources/cold-floors-crawl-space/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/,/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/What it said
The tracker’s status line: “In development. The code review committee has made its recommendations and the Residential and Manufactured Structures Board process is under way. The 2026 edition has not been adopted, no final code text has been published, and the 2023 ORSC remains the code in force.” Its alert: “Nothing on this page is adopted code.” Its timeline, on the board stage: “The division has not published a board outcome document, so this is recorded as unconfirmed rather than complete”; and on the hearing: “No notice of this hearing was listed on the division’s proposed rulemaking page when it was checked on August 28, 2026.” Its first answer began “No. The 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) is the code in force in Oregon.” The Oregon requirements page said the 2026 edition “had not been adopted as of this site’s last status check”; the other pages said Oregon “is developing” or “anticipates” a 2026 edition, and the cold floors guide said of the higher under-floor insulation values, “Nothing is adopted yet.”
What it says now
The tracker now reports the edition as adopted and in effect since October 1, 2026, with the six-month phase-in to March 31, 2027 during which building departments must accept plans designed to either edition, and it cites the administrative rule. Its timeline records the board approvals of January 7 and February 18, 2026, the August 18 hearing and the September 30 filing. The four changed crawl space rows moved from “Proposed” to a new status, “Approved, final text not yet read”, because the published 2026 code text had not been posted on October 2 and this site has not read it. The other pages now state the effective date and the phase-in.
- Why the original was wrong
- Oregon’s administrative rule adopting the code, OAR 918-480-0005, was amended by a filing dated September 30, 2026 and effective October 1, 2026; it sets out the phase-in. The division’s notice of rulemaking hearing, filed July 27, 2026, gives the hearing date as August 18 and states that the board approved the committees’ recommendations on January 7 and February 18, 2026. The August 28 check read the division’s rulemaking page as plain text, and that page draws its list by script, so the notice was not in what was read. The adoption was then missed because the check relied on the division’s own pages, which on October 2 still called the date anticipated, and not on the Secretary of State’s rule record.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- For two days a reader was told the 2026 edition was a proposal that nothing could be built to, when plans designed to it had to be accepted from October 1. For five weeks before that, a reader was told the rulemaking hearing had not been noticed and the board had not acted, when both had happened; anyone gauging how close the edition was to adoption was given a picture several months behind. Nothing this site says about what R408 requires changed: those provisions are recorded as retained, and the 2023 edition they are quoted from remains adopted through the phase-in.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Secretary of State, Oregon Administrative Rules Database, OAR 918-480-0005, Adopted Oregon Residential Specialty Code (BCD 14-2026, amend filed 09/30/2026, effective 10/01/2026)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, Notice of rulemaking hearing: 2026 Oregon Residential Specialty Code adoption (20260818-26orscadoption-ph.pdf, 7 pages; notice of proposed rulemaking filed 07/27/2026)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, Proposed rulemaking
- Factual error #
The homepage and the crawl space repair hub described a request form that takes photo uploads and a match made “instantly”, and the homepage promised a PDF download from the cost calculator and counted seven crawl space services. The form takes no uploads, the calculator has no download, nothing supports “instantly”, and there are eight services.
Pages:
/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/What it said
Step 1 of “how it works” on both pages: “Answer a few questions or upload photos. Takes less than 2 minutes.” Step 2 on both: “Get matched instantly”, with “We connect you with a licensed Oregon CCB contractor in your zone.” The homepage’s calculator panel: “PDF download available after estimate”. The homepage’s Crawl Space Repair card: “Encapsulation, waterproofing, vapor barriers, drainage, sump pumps, insulation replacement, and mold remediation” and “7 services”.
What it says now
Step 1 now reads “Answer a few questions about the house and what you are seeing. Takes less than 2 minutes.” Step 2 is headed “Get matched with a contractor” and says the request goes to a licensed contractor who covers the ZIP, Oregon CCB or Washington L&I. The PDF line was removed. The card names structural repair and takes its count from the site’s own list of services, which gives eight.
- Why the original was wrong
- The request form has no file field, and the privacy notice says in terms that the form does not accept photo or file uploads; the wording dates from a photo tool that was retired, and the same promise had already been taken off the inspection call-to-action. The calculator shows a range on screen and offers no download of any kind. No contractor has committed to a response time, which is why this site removed its other timing promises; “instantly” was one that remained. When structural repair was added as the eighth crawl space service the hub was updated and the homepage card was not. Step 2 also named only the Oregon licence on two pages that serve Clark County.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner could have started a request expecting to send photographs or to be matched at once, and a reader who ran the calculator could have looked for a document it does not produce. A Vancouver or Camas reader was told the match would be an Oregon-licensed contractor, who could not lawfully do the work there. The service count understated what the site covers by one.
- Sourcing or provenance #
The Tualatin page’s introduction promised “real Portland metro pricing”. Every range on this site is a modelled estimate.
Page:
/service-areas/tualatin/What it said
The line under the page heading ended: “Licensed Oregon CCB contractors, free in-home inspection, real Portland metro pricing.”
What it says now
It now ends “Licensed Oregon CCB contractors, free in-home inspection, and modelled Portland metro price ranges.”
- Why the original was wrong
- The pricing file labels every range a modelled editorial estimate, and the methodology page says the site holds no dataset of Portland crawl space quotes. The same claim was withdrawn from the cost guide and the about page on 20 August, from the calculator on 9 September and from the sidebar of every service page on 28 September; this sentence, in one city’s record, was missed each time.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A Tualatin reader could have taken the ranges the page links to as prices collected from local contractors rather than estimates, and given them more weight than the site itself does.
-
Four city pages described what the network’s contractors are experienced in or hold, a rodent guide called R-30 the Oregon code minimum for a crawl space floor, and the sump pump page gave a seven-to-twelve-year pump life that its own cost model does not use.
Pages:
/service-areas/lake-oswego/,/service-areas/west-linn/,/service-areas/happy-valley/,/service-areas/camas/,/resources/rodents-in-crawl-space/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/What it said
Lake Oswego, West Linn and Happy Valley: “Contractors are Oregon CCB-licensed and experienced with hillside drainage retrofits.” Camas: “Camas requires Washington L&I licensed contractors for all construction work, including crawl space repair. The contractors in the network hold active L&I licenses, bonds, and liability insurance.” The rodent guide: “New insulation to R-30, the Oregon code minimum for a vented crawl space in this climate zone.” The sump pump page: “Quality 1/3 HP submersible sump pumps last 7 to 12 years in typical Portland use”, “past the 7-to-12-year lifespan” (twice), and “Sump pump that is over 8 years old (typical pump lifespan)”.
What it says now
The three Oregon city notes keep the licensing statement and ask the homeowner to question each bidder about hillside drainage work instead of asserting experience. Camas now says Washington requires construction contractors to register with L&I, that registration requires a bond and general liability insurance, and that any contractor’s registration can be checked with L&I’s lookup. The rodent guide describes R-30 as the level Energy Trust’s floor insulation incentive asks for and notes the retrofit table allows R-25 in joists 10 inches deep or less. The sump pump page uses the seven-year service life from InterNACHI’s life-expectancy chart, which the site’s cost model already uses.
- Why the original was wrong
- No record held by this site shows what individual contractors in the network have done, so experience claims about them cannot be supported; the same kind of sentence was removed from the service template earlier today. Washington registers rather than licenses contractors, and the bond and insurance are conditions of registration under state law, not facts this site has checked about particular firms. R-30 is the new-construction figure and the incentive target; Table N1101.2 of the 2023 ORSC governs a retrofit. InterNACHI’s chart lists a sump pump at 7 years, and no source held by the site supports twelve.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader could have relied on contractor experience or insurance the site never verified, treated a compliant R-25 retrofit as a code failure, or kept an aging sump pump in service several years past the service life inspectors use.
- Source that settles it
-
- Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Verify a Contractor, Tradesperson or Business
- Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, Higher contractor bonds will help consumers stuck with shoddy construction (News release 24-13)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, Chapter 11 — Energy Efficiency (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- International Association of Certified Home Inspectors (InterNACHI), InterNACHI's Standard Estimated Life Expectancy Chart for Homes
- Regulatory statement #
The crawl space repair hub, the encapsulation page and the insulation replacement page still named rim joist air sealing as an Energy Trust measure, said a Trade Ally had to install the work, and gave a March-to-February program year that nothing in Energy Trust’s documents supports. The measure and installer points had already been corrected on other pages.
Pages:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/What it said
The hub’s overview callout: “crawl space floor insulation and rim joist air sealing are eligible for Energy Trust of Oregon incentives when installed by a Trade Ally contractor on a home heated by a participating utility, and the program’s residential cycle runs March 1 to February 28”; its FAQ: “Crawl space floor insulation and rim joist air sealing are eligible measures under Energy Trust of Oregon’s residential program when installed by a Trade Ally contractor on a home heated by a participating utility.” The encapsulation page: “Energy Trust of Oregon’s residential program currently lists crawlspace floor insulation and air sealing as eligible measures when installed by a Trade Ally contractor on a home heated by a participating utility.” The insulation page: “Energy Trust of Oregon’s residential rebate program includes crawlspace floor insulation as an eligible measure when installed by a Trade Ally contractor on a participating utility, and the program year runs March 1 to February 28”; its FAQ: “Crawlspace floor insulation upgrades to current code R-value (R-30 in Portland’s climate zone) are eligible measures under Energy Trust of Oregon’s residential program when installed by a Trade Ally contractor … Rim joist air sealing is also a typical eligible add-on measure”; its cost answer: “Energy Trust of Oregon rebates can offset part of the floor insulation cost when installed by a Trade Ally contractor”; and its introduction: “Energy Trust of Oregon rebate paperwork handled by a licensed CCB Trade Ally contractor.”
What it says now
All three pages now name the two measures Energy Trust pays toward — floor insulation, where the existing insulation is R-11 or less and the new insulation reaches R-30 or more, and rim joist insulation — and say the incentive sheet lists rim joist insulation rather than air sealing. They say a Trade Ally is not required: a contractor with a current Oregon CCB licence can install eligible work and floor insulation can be self-installed, though the rental and Savings Within Reach amounts need an enrolled trade ally. The program-year dates were removed. The insulation page also gives the rim joist thresholds (existing R-4 or less, new R-15 or more) and the 60-day filing deadline, and describes R-30 as the incentive’s target rather than the code requirement.
- Why the original was wrong
- Energy Trust’s 2026 incentive sheet (v2026.5) lists rim joist insulation under its wall insulation measure, not air sealing, and states that a contractor who is not a trade ally can install eligible upgrades with a current CCB licence; its insulation page publishes self-installation guidelines for floor insulation. Nothing in the sheet, which is effective January 1, 2026, or on that page supports a March 1 to February 28 program year, so the dates were removed rather than replaced. The measure and installer points were corrected on the encapsulation FAQ on 14 September and on the homepage, the city pages and the cost guide earlier today; none of those sweeps reached these three passages. “Current code R-value (R-30)” is the retrofit error corrected on this page’s body on 1 September, surviving in its FAQ.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner reading any of the three pages could have budgeted around an air sealing incentive that does not exist, ruled out a licensed contractor who was not an enrolled Trade Ally or their own labour, or timed the work around a program year the incentive sheet does not describe. A reader of the insulation FAQ could also have taken a compliant R-25 retrofit for a code failure.
- Source that settles it
-
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Insulation — Residential incentives
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, Chapter 11 — Energy Efficiency (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Regulatory statement #
Three service pages misstated what code or licensing requires: closed-cell rim joist foam was called “typically required for full code compliance”, R-30 was called the code minimum for a retrofit floor, and a new sump basin was said to require a CCB licence even when the owner installs it.
Pages:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/What it said
The encapsulation page’s cost factors: “Closed-cell spray foam at rim joists adds $1,025 to $2,050 but is typically required for full code compliance.” The insulation page’s cost factors: “R-30 floor batt is code minimum; R-38 or higher adds material cost.” The sump pump page’s do-it-yourself answer: “New basin installation (cutting into the soil, setting the basin, running discharge plumbing, electrical wiring) is construction work that requires CCB licensing in Oregon.”
What it says now
The rim joist line now gives the modelled add-on price, makes no code claim, and says rim joist insulation is one of the two measures Energy Trust pays toward where the existing rim insulation is R-4 or less. The R-value line gives the retrofit table — R-30 where joists are deeper than 10 inches, R-25 where they are 10 inches or less — and R-30 for the incentive. The sump pump answer says Oregon exempts owners working on property they own from CCB licensing and that anyone paid to do the work needs a licence, and that a new circuit still needs an electrical permit and inspection even though the owner is also exempt from electrical licensing on a home not intended for sale or rent.
- Why the original was wrong
- The rim joist claim cited no code section, and none of the code sources this site holds supports it: the R408.3 provisions the page quotes set the ground cover and the conditioning methods for a sealed crawl space, and closed-cell foam is one way to insulate a rim joist, not a requirement. R-30 is the new-construction figure; Table N1101.2 of the 2023 ORSC governs a retrofit and permits R-25 in joists 10 inches or shallower, which is the error corrected in this page’s body on 1 September and missed in its cost factors. ORS 701.010(7) exempts a person working on property they own or on their own residence, the point corrected on the encapsulation page on 14 September; ORS 479.540(1) exempts an owner from electrical licensing, the point corrected on the sump pump cost guide the same day.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader comparing encapsulation bids could have treated closed-cell rim joist foam as mandatory and paid for it on that basis, or discounted a bid without it as non-compliant. A reader could have challenged a compliant R-25 retrofit. An owner able to install or replace a sump could have believed doing it themselves was unlawful, while the permit that genuinely applies to the circuit went unmentioned.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, Chapter 11 — Energy Efficiency (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Legislative Assembly, ORS 701.010 — Application of chapter (exemptions), and ORS 701.021 — Licensing requirement (2023 Oregon Revised Statutes)
- Oregon Legislative Assembly, ORS 479.540 — Exemptions (electrical licensing) (2023 Oregon Revised Statutes, 479.540(1))
- City of Portland, Permitting & Development, Lights, outlets, switches, and service reconnect for residential electrical permits
-
Six service pages and the West Linn page published cost figures that exist in no pricing model, the sump pump page priced a pump replacement at the full installation range, and the mold page called the per-location wood rot figure “structural repairs”. The figures are withdrawn or corrected, and every remaining figure on these pages is read from the pricing file.
Pages:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/drainage/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/,/service-areas/west-linn/What it said
The sump pump page gave a pump-only replacement at “$600 to $1,025” in its repair section, its cost range and two FAQs, and also listed “Sump replacement. Existing pump has failed; basin is reusable. $1,525 to $2,975 for the pump, plumbing, and electrical”, “Backup pump upgrade … $675 to $1,275”, “A secondary pump with marine battery adds $350 to $675 in equipment” and “Smart alarms that text the homeowner add $125 to $250 in equipment.” The vapor barrier page: “Smaller crawlspaces (under 1,000 sq ft) can be under $2,550”, “Spending the extra $250 to $600 on a 10-mil to 12-mil upgrade is almost always worth it” and “20-mil premium adds 30% to 50% to material cost.” The drainage page: “Standard 1/3 HP submersible runs $350 to $600; battery backup pump adds $350 to $675.” The waterproofing page carried the same pump figures with “Wi-Fi monitoring adds $125 to $250”, and a crack injection figure of “$350 to $775 per crack” in its cost factors, cost range and FAQ. The insulation page: “Adding rodent exclusion work, mold remediation, or vapor barrier replacement to the scope adds $1,275 to $4,250.” The mold page: “Structural repairs to rotted joists or sub-flooring run $350 to $1,275 per repair.” The West Linn page: “drain length and discharge routing on a sloped lot are what push a drainage scope 20% to 40% above a flat-lot equivalent.”
What it says now
Each unmodelled figure was removed and replaced with what the model does publish, or with what moves the price. The sump pump page gives the modelled installation range, basin included, and the battery-backup total, and says it publishes no pump-only, retrofit-backup or Wi-Fi figure. The vapor barrier page gives its modelled standard and premium bands. The drainage and waterproofing pages say the pump is included in their ranges and give the battery-backup total, and waterproofing describes crack repair as part of its scope without a per-crack figure. The insulation page prices mold remediation and a vapor barrier at their own modelled ranges and says rodent exclusion has none. The mold page describes the rot figure as a localised repair, per location, and says replacing a girder or a run of joists is priced by its written scope. The West Linn page gives the curtain-drain add-on on top of the drainage range, and the complex hillside band.
- Why the original was wrong
- None of the withdrawn figures exists in the pricing file, so none went through the 1 September market validation or carries a source — the standard applied to the foundation page on 10 September and to the basement page and cost guide earlier today. The $1,525 to $2,975 sump range prices a new installation including the basin, so it cannot also be the price of a replacement that reuses one, and the same page quoted a different figure for that job. The rot figure is the wood rot repair add-on, which the pricing file defines as one repair location and states is not a structural repair range; the same label was corrected on the wood rot guide earlier today. The curtain-drain add-on, $2,125 to $5,100 on a $3,825 to $6,800 drainage job, is 31% to 133% extra, so “20% to 40%” contradicted the model as well as lacking one.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader budgeting from these pages was given numbers that looked researched and were not — on the sump pump page, a pump-only figure with nothing behind it next to a replacement priced as a whole new installation. A West Linn homeowner with a hillside drainage job would have expected a far smaller increase than the site’s own curtain-drain figure implies. A reader with decayed girders could have taken $350 to $1,275 as the likely size of a structural bill.
- Sourcing or provenance #
The sidebar on every service page listed “Real Portland metro pricing” among its reasons to trust the site. Every range on the site is a modelled estimate, and the site holds no quote data.
Pages:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/drainage/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/structural-repair/,/solutions/crawl-space-inspection/,/solutions/basement-waterproofing/,/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/What it said
A checklist in the sidebar of every service page: “CCB-licensed contractors only”, “Real Portland metro pricing”, “Free inspection, no obligation”.
What it says now
The middle item now reads “Modelled price ranges, method published” and links to the cost methodology, and the cost range on each service page is introduced as the “Modelled 2026 Portland metro range”.
- Why the original was wrong
- The pricing file labels every range a modelled editorial estimate, and the methodology page says the site does not hold a dataset of Portland crawl space quotes. “Real pricing” is the kind of provenance claim this site withdrew from the cost guide and the about page on 20 August and from the calculator on 9 September; the shared service-page template kept it.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader could have taken the figures on eleven service pages as collected from Portland contractors rather than estimated, and given them more weight than the site itself does.
-
Claims about the contractor network, a mold coverage cap, and a local name for a basement type had no source behind them and were removed: that network contractors cover all 19 cities, that many hold IICRC certifications, that Oregon policies cap mold at $5,000 to $10,000, and “Mt. Hood basements”.
Pages:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/drainage/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/structural-repair/,/service-areas/oregon-city/,/solutions/basement-waterproofing/What it said
The city block on eight service pages, headed “Cities We Cover for …”: “Licensed contractors in the network cover all 19 Portland metro cities. These are a few of the priority service areas.” The mold remediation page: “The contractors in the network are CCB-licensed and many hold additional IICRC certifications (S520 Applied Microbial Remediation Technician, AMRT) that demonstrate training in the industry standard”; two city cards reading “IICRC S520 certified contractors” and “Premium air sampling included”; and an insurance answer opening “Homeowners insurance typically covers mold remediation when the mold is the direct result of a sudden, covered event (burst pipe, recent flood)” and adding “Many Oregon insurance policies have explicit mold caps ($5,000 to $10,000) even on covered events.” The Oregon City page: “Many historic homes have partial basements or Mt. Hood basements (partial concrete, partial dirt) that complicate scope”, repeated in a local section and a FAQ. The basement waterproofing page, until its rewrite earlier today: “pre-1940 inner Portland often has partial or full basements (sometimes called "Mt. Hood basements")”.
What it says now
The city block is now headed “… by City” and describes the city pages rather than the network: what they cover, and that the cities shown are among the 19 service areas the site covers. The mold page says IICRC certification is a separate, voluntary credential to ask the crew about, and its two city cards describe the areas instead of contractors. Its insurance answer now cites Oregon’s Division of Financial Regulation and Washington’s insurance commissioner, as the cost guide’s does, gives no dollar figure, and names a burst pipe, not a flood, as the kind of event usually covered. The Oregon City and basement pages say “partial basements”.
- Why the original was wrong
- The contractors this site refers requests to are independent businesses whose coverage, certifications and quote contents it does not verify, so it cannot state them; it can say which areas it accepts requests from, which is what the city block now does. No primary source gives a typical Oregon mold coverage limit, and the cost guide’s identical figure was removed earlier today for that reason. Oregon’s regulator lists flood and surface water among the losses most homeowner policies exclude, so a flood was the wrong example of a covered event. No source for “Mt. Hood basements” as a name for a Portland-area basement type could be found; the basement page dropped the phrase in its rewrite without recording it here.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader could have assumed a contractor was lined up for their city and service, or certified to a remediation standard, on the site’s word alone. A reader weighing an insurance claim was given a coverage cap nothing supported and told that flood damage was the kind usually covered. An Oregon City or Portland reader was given a name for their basement that nobody could trace.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Division of Financial Regulation, Top 10 home insurance myths
- Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner, Leaks, water damage and mold
- Factual error #
The crawl space waterproofing page called an interior drainage system functionally equivalent to exterior waterproofing — the claim corrected on the basement and foundation pages earlier today, surviving on this one.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/What it said
“Interior waterproofing systems with perimeter drains and sump pumps are functionally equivalent for stopping interior water entry and run a fraction of the cost.”
What it says now
The answer now says the two do different jobs: an exterior membrane and footing drain keep water off the foundation wall, while an interior perimeter drain and sump collect water after it has come through or under the wall and pump it out. Interior drainage is described as the usual retrofit because it avoids excavation, and the cost comparison was removed.
- Why the original was wrong
- EPA’s moisture control guidance describes below-grade wall coatings as a capillary break that excludes the water saturating the surrounding fill, with a footing drain carrying water away from the footing; the Department of Energy’s Building America guidance gives interior footing drainage to a sump as the renovation option where an exterior system is not feasible. An interior system manages water that has already entered.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner weighing interior against exterior work could have concluded that an interior system keeps the foundation wall itself dry.
- Source that settles it
-
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Moisture Control Guidance for Building Design, Construction and Maintenance (EPA 402-F-13053, December 2013)
- U.S. Department of Energy, Building America Solution Center, Sump Pump Cover Gasket
-
The climate and housing dataset published each city’s share of housing built before 1960 in its column for the share built before 1950 — on the dataset page and in both downloads — and the structural repair page and four guides repeated Portland’s figure as a pre-1950 share.
Pages:
/data/portland-metro-climate-housing/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/structural-repair/,/resources/wood-rot-in-crawl-space/,/resources/high-humidity-crawl-space/,/resources/standing-water-in-crawl-space/,/resources/sagging-bouncy-floors-crawl-space/What it said
The dataset page’s city table had a “Built pre-1950” column reading Portland 45.3%, Milwaukie 37.4%, Camas 18.0%, Washougal 17.9%, Oregon City 17.5%, Vancouver 15.1%, Lake Oswego 12.7%, Gresham 10.9%, West Linn 10.3%, Aloha 8.1%, Hillsboro 7.8%, Beaverton 7.3%, Tigard 6.2%, Sherwood 4.5%, Battle Ground 3.9%, Happy Valley 3.6%, Wilsonville 2.2% and Tualatin 1.6%; its methodology said “Pre-1980 and pre-1950 shares are summed from the B25034 buckets”; and the field dictionary, the CSV and the JSON carried the same values as pct_built_pre_1950, “Percentage built in 1949 or earlier, from ACS table B25034.” The structural repair page read “Census American Community Survey figures put 45.3% of the City of Portland's housing units at pre-1950”, and the wood rot, high humidity, standing water and sagging floors guides each said “Citywide in Portland, 45.3 percent of housing units were built before 1950”.
What it says now
The dataset now carries three nested shares, each named for what it measures and each listing the Census buckets it sums: pct_built_pre_1980, unchanged; pct_built_pre_1960, new, holding the values previously published as pre-1950; and pct_built_pre_1950, now the share built in 1949 or earlier — Portland 34.3%, Milwaukie 16.5%, Camas 14.3%, Oregon City 13.0%, Washougal 11.7%, Vancouver 9.7%, Lake Oswego and West Linn 6.1%, Hillsboro 4.5%, Gresham 4.2%, Beaverton 4.0%, Battle Ground 3.1%, Sherwood 2.9%, Aloha and Tigard 2.7%, Wilsonville 1.7%, Happy Valley 1.2% and Tualatin 1.0%. The page table, field dictionary, CSV and JSON carry both columns, and the dataset now keeps a dated revision log that is also written into both downloads. The structural repair page, which reads the column, now gives 34.3% at pre-1950, and the four guides say 34.3 percent. The city pages, /cost/ and the basement waterproofing page quote the pre-1960 share, already labelled “built before 1960”, and are unchanged.
- Why the original was wrong
- The column was built by summing ACS table B25034’s decade buckets and took in the 1950 to 1959 bucket as well. Re-pulling B25034 and B25035 for all eighteen places from data.census.gov on 28 September 2026 reproduced every value in the column as the share built in 1959 or earlier, and the Census Bureau’s own DP04 profile percentages give the same true figures for Portland (27.1% built in 1939 or earlier plus 7.2% in the 1940s, 34.3%), Milwaukie (16.5%) and Vancouver (9.7%). Housing units, medians, margins of error and pre-1980 shares matched exactly, so no other column moved. The city pages were corrected earlier the same day; this entry covers the dataset itself and the pages outside the city set that read or repeated it.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- Anyone who downloaded the dataset, cited its pre-1950 column or took Portland’s figure from one of these pages overstated pre-war housing: Portland by eleven points, 45.3% against 34.3%, and Milwaukie, Gresham, Aloha, Tigard, Lake Oswego and Happy Valley by a factor of two to three. A reader using the column to judge how much of a city dates from the post-and-pier, no-ground-cover era would have expected far more of those houses than the Census supports. A file saved before this date still carries the old values under the pre-1950 name; the new pre-1960 column shows which figures they were.
- Source that settles it
-
- United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates — Year Structure Built (B25034) and Median Year Structure Built (B25035) (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates, tables ACSDT5Y2023.B25034 and ACSDT5Y2023.B25035)
- Regulatory statement #
Statements about Energy Trust incentives and Oregon’s floor-insulation requirement that had already been corrected on other pages were still published on the city pages.
Pages:
/service-areas/portland/,/service-areas/beaverton/,/service-areas/hillsboro/,/service-areas/tigard/,/service-areas/aloha/,/service-areas/lake-oswego/,/service-areas/tualatin/,/service-areas/west-linn/,/service-areas/oregon-city/,/service-areas/sherwood/,/service-areas/wilsonville/,/service-areas/gresham/,/service-areas/happy-valley/,/service-areas/clackamas/,/service-areas/milwaukie/,/service-areas/vancouver-wa/,/service-areas/camas/What it said
A rebate answer on every Oregon city page read “Crawl space floor insulation upgraded to R-30 and rim joist air sealing are eligible measures”. The Beaverton page said “Energy Trust of Oregon rebates may apply when the insulation portion is installed by a Trade Ally contractor”, and the Hillsboro page that eligibility “depends on the insulation portion of the scope being installed by a Trade Ally contractor”. The Vancouver and Camas pages said Washington has different rebate programs “from Oregon’s Energy Trust”. And the Beaverton page described R-30 floor insulation as what it takes “to meet current Oregon Residential Specialty Code”, the Gresham page as “Oregon code R-30 floor insulation requirements”.
What it says now
The shared rebate answer is replaced by one line naming floor and rim joist insulation as the measures an Energy Trust incentive can pay toward, with the amounts left to the rebate guide. Beaverton and Hillsboro now say a CCB-licensed contractor who is not an enrolled Trade Ally can install the work, with the rental and income-qualified amounts reserved for Trade Allies. Vancouver and Camas now say Energy Trust’s insulation incentive reaches Washington homes heated by NW Natural, at different amounts. Beaverton and Gresham now describe floor insulation by the retrofit table: R-25 or R-30 depending on joist depth, and R-30 where the incentive is wanted.
- Why the original was wrong
- Energy Trust’s insulation page lists floor insulation and wall insulation, rim joists included, offers no air sealing incentive, allows eligible measures to be self-installed, and requires Washington customers to be served by NW Natural. The Trade Ally and air sealing points were corrected on the encapsulation page on 14 September 2026, and the R-30 point on three other pages on 1 September 2026; neither sweep reached the city pages.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- An Oregon reader could have budgeted around an air sealing incentive that does not exist, or concluded that using a licensed contractor who is not an enrolled Trade Ally, or their own labour, would forfeit the incentive. A Washington reader heated by NW Natural could have assumed no Energy Trust incentive applied to them. A Beaverton or Gresham reader could have challenged a code-compliant R-25 retrofit as non-compliant.
- Source that settles it
-
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Insulation — Residential incentives
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, Chapter 11 — Energy Efficiency (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Factual error #
Introductory text on the Gresham and Beaverton pages contradicted the measured figures further down the same pages.
Pages:
/service-areas/gresham/,/service-areas/beaverton/What it said
Gresham: “Standing water is less common than in the Westside or SW corridor because Gresham’s soils drain marginally better”. Beaverton: “Beaverton’s housing stock is dominated by 1970s through 1990s tract subdivisions in Cedar Hills, Cedar Mill, Murray Hill, and the Raleigh Hills area”.
What it says now
Gresham now says standing water is a live possibility, with 54.5% of the city’s mapped area rated somewhat poorly to very poorly drained, more than Beaverton or Tigard. Beaverton now gives the city’s own median year built, 1987, and says that Cedar Hills, West Slope and Raleigh Hills are unincorporated communities whose housing dates mostly from the 1950s and 1960s.
- Why the original was wrong
- The soil survey rates Gresham wetter than every Southwest Corridor city and than Beaverton, Tigard and Aloha; only Hillsboro and Happy Valley rate higher. On the Census figures Cedar Hills has a median year built of 1965 and Raleigh Hills 1966, with 87.7% and 74.3% of homes built before 1980, and both are census-designated places outside Beaverton’s city limits.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A Gresham reader was steered away from groundwater as an explanation in a city where it is more plausible than in most of the metro. A reader in Cedar Hills or Raleigh Hills was told to expect late-century construction when the houses there are typically decades older.
- Source that settles it
-
- USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO), via Soil Data Access (muaggatt.drclassdcd — drainage class, dominant condition)
- United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates — Year Structure Built (B25034) and Median Year Structure Built (B25035), for ZIP Code Tabulation Areas and census-designated places (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates, tables ACSDT5Y2023.B25034 and ACSDT5Y2023.B25035)
- United States Census Bureau, Geography glossary — Census Designated Place (CDP)
- Methodology change #
The wood rot guide presented the per-location wood rot repair figure as what "structural repair" costs. The site has no modelled range for structural repair; the figure prices one localised repair.
Page:
/resources/wood-rot-in-crawl-space/What it said
In the repair section: “Structural repair on decayed framing typically runs $350 to $1,275 per repair location, and it is always paired with correcting the moisture source - repairing the wood alone leaves the cause in place.” In the FAQ: “Structural repair on affected framing typically runs $350 to $1,275 per repair location, depending on the extent of the damage and access.”
What it says now
Both now describe the figure the way the site’s pricing file defines it: a localised repair to decayed framing — one bay, one post base, one section of sill — at $350 to $1,275 per repair location. The page now says that replacing a girder or a run of joists is priced by its written scope, and that this site publishes no range for that work.
- Why the original was wrong
- The figure is the wood rot repair add-on, which the pricing file documents as pricing a single repair location and states is not a structural repair range, because no modelled Portland range for structural framing work exists. The structural repair page already labelled it correctly, so two pages described the same number as two different things.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner with a failed girder or several decayed joists could have taken $350 to $1,275 as the likely size of the bill, when the site’s own structural repair page puts framing replacement at the five-figure end.
- Regulatory statement #
The homepage FAQ said crawl space insulation qualifies for Energy Trust incentives only when a Trade Ally installs it, and named rim joist air sealing as a measure. The same sentence was corrected on the encapsulation page on 14 September; the homepage copy was missed.
Page:
/What it said
“Crawlspace floor insulation and rim joist air sealing are eligible measures under Energy Trust of Oregon’s residential program when installed by a Trade Ally contractor on a home heated by an electric or gas utility that participates with Energy Trust. Rebate amounts and rules change each year, so the contractor you select should confirm current eligibility, pull the rebate paperwork, and document R-values during the inspection.”
What it says now
The answer now names floor insulation and rim joist insulation as the measures a crawl space project usually claims, with the R-11 existing and R-30 new thresholds, and says a Trade Ally is not required: a contractor with a current CCB licence (or an active Washington contractor licence) can install eligible work, and Energy Trust publishes self-installation guidelines for floor insulation, although the rental and Savings Within Reach amounts need an enrolled trade ally. It gives the 60-day filing deadline and links the rebate guide for the current amounts.
- Why the original was wrong
- Energy Trust’s incentive sheet states that a non-trade-ally contractor with a current Oregon CCB licence, or an active Washington contractor licence, can install certain upgrades, and it lists rim joist insulation under the wall insulation measure rather than air sealing. Its insulation page publishes self-installation guidance for floor insulation. This is the error recorded as 2026-09-14-energy-trust-installer, found again on the homepage while adding a link to the rebate guide there.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner reading the homepage would have believed only a Trade Ally could install incentive-eligible insulation, and could have ruled out a licensed contractor they already trusted, or their own labour, or given up on the incentive altogether.
- Source that settles it
-
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Insulation — Residential incentives
-
The Energy Trust rebate guide gave Oregon’s $1.50 per square foot as the rim joist rate for its whole net-cost table, including the Washington rows, where Energy Trust pays $1.25. Its Washington section also left the wall and rim joist rows out.
Page:
/resources/energy-trust-rebate-2026/What it said
“The incentive is paid on floor area, while the project range also covers removal, disposal and rim joist sealing, so the subtraction is exact only for the insulation measure itself — rim joist work earns separately, at $1.50 per square foot of rim area rather than floor area.” The Washington table listed floor insulation only.
What it says now
The note now gives the rim joist rate by state: $1.50 per square foot of rim area for an owner-occupied single-family home in Oregon, and $1.25 on the Washington side for homes heated by NW Natural. The Washington table now carries the wall and rim joist rows it had omitted, and both tables now list every Savings Within Reach row the sheet carries for floor and rim joist work.
- Why the original was wrong
- Energy Trust prices wall and rim joist insulation separately for each state, and $1.50 is the Oregon rate. On the Washington sheet the owner-occupied rate is $1.25 per square foot in both the February 2026 revision (v2026.2) and the current one (v2026.5), so there is no reason to think the June revision the page was written from said anything else. Found while re-checking the page’s figures against the September revision of the sheet; no Oregon figure on the page had changed.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner in Vancouver, Camas, Washougal or Battle Ground would have expected a quarter more per square foot of rim joist than Energy Trust pays. The sum is small because rim area is small, and the Washington floor insulation figures, which carry most of the money, were correct.
- Source that settles it
-
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
-
The cost guide’s list of what moves a price was still publishing the calculator’s adjustment tables from before the 9 September correction, including a surcharge for a damp crawl space that every published range already prices. Its “complex projects” tier also began above the published range for the hillside drainage it described.
Pages:
/cost/,/tools/cost-calculator/What it said
The cost guide’s adjustment list read: “Crawlspaces under 500 sq ft typically run about 25% below the typical range for a given service; spaces over 1,500 sq ft run 30% to 60% above it”; “Damp conditions add about $680, active wet conditions add about $1,360, and standing water adds about $2,375 in extra prep before the main scope can start”; and hillside systems “push drainage-heavy projects 20% to 40% higher”, which the hillside FAQ repeated. Its “Complex” tier read “$14,875 – $38,000+” for “Exterior excavation, hillside drainage with multiple interceptors, or a whole-basement system.” The calculator page said of moisture: “Damp adds least; dry adds nothing.”
What it says now
The adjustment list now reads the calculator’s own tables in src/lib/calculator.ts, so the two cannot disagree again: damp and dry add nothing, because the ranges already price a damp crawl space; water pooling at the time of the quote adds $680 and standing water $1,700; a crawl space under 500 sq ft is priced about 42% below the reference range, 500 to 1,000 sq ft about 23% below, and over 1,500 sq ft about 23% above. The hillside figure is now the published curtain-drain add-on, $2,125 to $5,100 on top of a drainage scope, with the drainage row’s premium band for complex systems. The complex tier now starts at $7,225, the bottom of the hillside drainage and basement ranges its own description names. The calculator page says damp is the reference condition and adds nothing.
- Why the original was wrong
- On 9 September the calculator’s size and moisture tables were re-anchored on the reference project every published range prices — 1,200 to 1,500 sq ft and damp — because they had been anchored on a smaller, drier crawl space. The cost guide’s list had been written from those old tables in July and was never updated; its figures are the old tables exactly: ×0.75 under 500 sq ft and ×1.3 to ×1.6 above 1,000 sq ft against a 500–1,000 sq ft anchor, and +$680, +$1,360 and +$2,375 for damp, wet and standing water. The “20% to 40%” hillside figure matched no row or add-on in the pricing file. The complex tier’s $14,875 is the premium encapsulation figure, which appears nowhere in the scopes that tier describes.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader budgeting from the cost guide’s list would have added about $680 for dampness the published ranges already include — the double count the September correction removed from the calculator — and would have got different size adjustments from the list than from the calculator on the same page. A reader with a hillside drainage job was told complex work starts at $14,875, above the whole published range for complex hillside drainage.
-
The basement and foundation waterproofing pages carried sub-scope figures and cost multipliers that existed in no pricing model and carried no source. All are withdrawn, as the foundation page’s other sub-scope figures were on 10 September.
Pages:
/solutions/basement-waterproofing/,/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/What it said
The basement page said “Smaller scopes (crack injection plus sump only) start around $2,975”, in its cost paragraph and its first FAQ, and its cost-factor list read “Dimple board or sheet membrane on the walls runs $3.40 to $6.80 per square foot installed”, “Polyurethane or epoxy injection of foundation cracks runs $350 to $775 per crack”, “Standard 1/3 HP submersible plus battery backup runs $1,025 to $2,125 in equipment plus install labor” and “Basement-rated 70 to 90 pint dehumidifiers run $1,025 to $2,125 installed with condensate drain.” The foundation page said waterproofing added during a remodel “adds 20% to 40% to the excavation cost but provides a permanent fix that would cost five to ten times more to add later.”
What it says now
The basement page now publishes only the modelled interior range, its premium band and the foundation range, all read from pricing.ts, and describes what moves the price without a figure. The foundation page says exposing the foundation for other work is the one time exterior waterproofing reliably makes sense on an existing house, because the digging and restoration are already being paid for, without a multiplier.
- Why the original was wrong
- None of these figures existed in the pricing file, so none went through the 1 September market validation or carried a source. The $2,975 was the top of the sump pump range relabelled as the starting point of a basement scope. The standard is the one applied on 10 September to this site’s other foundation sub-scope figures: a number with no model behind it is worse than no number.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner pricing a partial basement scope, or weighing waterproofing during a remodel, was given figures that looked researched and were not — including a claim that doing the work later would cost five to ten times more, which could have pushed someone into buying it now.
- Factual error #
The basement and foundation pages called interior waterproofing functionally equivalent to exterior waterproofing. It is not: an interior system collects water after it has come through the wall; an exterior system keeps it off the wall.
Pages:
/solutions/basement-waterproofing/,/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/What it said
The basement page: “Interior systems are functionally equivalent for stopping water entry and run at a fraction of the cost.” The foundation page: “an interior basement or crawlspace waterproofing system is functionally equivalent and runs at a fraction of the cost on an existing home.”
What it says now
Both pages now say the two are not equivalent: an interior system collects water after it has come through or under the wall and pumps it out, while an exterior membrane and footing drain keep water off the wall. Interior drainage is described as the usual renovation route because it avoids excavation, and the basement page compares the two side by side, including what each leaves behind.
- Why the original was wrong
- EPA’s moisture control guidance describes damp-proof or waterproof coatings on below-grade walls as a capillary break that excludes the water saturating the surrounding fill, with a footing drain carrying water away from the footing and slab. The Department of Energy’s Building America guidance presents drain pipe along the interior footing, draining to a sump, as the renovation option where an exterior drainage system is not feasible. An interior system manages water that has already entered; it does not stop it entering.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner deciding how to finish a basement could have concluded that an interior system keeps the wall itself dry. The wall behind an interior membrane can stay wet by design, which matters for whatever is built against it.
- Source that settles it
-
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Moisture Control Guidance for Building Design, Construction and Maintenance (EPA 402-F-13053, December 2013)
- U.S. Department of Energy, Building America Solution Center, Sump Pump Cover Gasket
- Regulatory statement #
The foundation waterproofing page said Oregon code requires waterproofing wherever hydrostatic pressure is anticipated, “which is most of Portland’s clay soils”, and that R405 requires footing drains around crawl spaces across most of the metro. Neither is what the code text supports.
Page:
/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/What it said
“Code requires dampproofing as a minimum on foundation walls retaining earth; waterproofing is required when hydrostatic pressure is anticipated, which is most of Portland’s clay soils.” And: “Section R405 requires footing drains around foundations with basements or crawlspaces in soils that are not free-draining (which describes most of the metro).”
What it says now
The page now gives R406.2’s actual trigger — a high water table or other severe soil-water conditions known to exist — lists the six waterproofing methods the section accepts, and says that whether a site has those conditions is a local determination, not a rule for the metro. On R405 it says only that the code refers to the foundation drainage system R405.1 requires and excuses drainage on well-drained Group I soils, and that this site could not check R405.1’s own text, so it does not paraphrase that section’s scope.
- Why the original was wrong
- R406.2 of the 2023 ORSC, as the Building Codes Division’s summary of the edition reproduces it, requires waterproofing “in areas where a high water table or other severe soil-water conditions are known to exist”. That is a stated site condition, not anticipated hydrostatic pressure, and nothing supported applying it to most of Portland. The R405 sentence extended a foundation drainage requirement to crawl spaces and to most of the metro; neither could be supported from any Oregon code text this site could check.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader holding a new-construction bid could have treated full waterproofing as mandatory everywhere in Portland, or a crawl space foundation as needing code footing drains, on this site’s word rather than the code’s.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code — Adoption: Summary of amendments to the base code (23orsc-summaryofamendments.pdf, 205 pages)
-
A dollar range for Oregon mold coverage caps, a promise of how quickly a basement smell clears, and two statements about how many Portland homes have basements or crawl spaces had no source behind them and were removed.
Pages:
/cost/,/solutions/basement-waterproofing/,/solutions/What it said
The cost guide’s insurance answer: “Many Oregon insurance policies also carry an explicit mold cap, often $5,000 to $10,000, even on events that are otherwise covered.” The basement page: “The combination eliminates the smell within two to six weeks in most Portland homes”; and “Portland’s basement housing stock is small relative to the metro’s crawlspace housing stock”. The solutions hub said crawl spaces cover “the majority of homes in the metro built before 1990”.
What it says now
The insurance answer now cites Oregon’s Division of Financial Regulation on the water damage most policies exclude and Washington’s insurance commissioner on limited mold coverage, with no dollar figure. The other statements were removed without replacement.
- Why the original was wrong
- No primary source gives a typical Oregon mold coverage limit: Oregon’s regulator publishes none, and Washington’s says only that some insurers provide limited mold coverage. The census, which is where this site’s housing figures come from, does not record foundation type, so no statement about how many Portland homes have basements or crawl spaces can rest on it. This site holds no outcome data from completed work, the standard applied when a heating-bill outcome claim was removed on 1 September.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader weighing an insurance claim was given a specific coverage cap that nothing supported, and a reader with a musty basement was promised a result on a timescale nobody had measured.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Division of Financial Regulation, Top 10 home insurance myths
- Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner, Leaks, water damage and mold
- United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates — Year Structure Built (B25034) and Median Year Structure Built (B25035) (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates, tables ACSDT5Y2023.B25034 and ACSDT5Y2023.B25035)
- Regulatory statement #
The cost guide’s rebate answer still named rim joist air sealing as an Energy Trust measure and called R-30 floor insulation “current code” — two statements already corrected on other pages in September.
Page:
/cost/What it said
“Crawlspace floor insulation upgraded to current code (R-30) and rim joist air sealing are eligible measures under Energy Trust of Oregon when installed on a home served by a participating utility.”
What it says now
The answer now names the two measures Energy Trust pays toward — floor insulation, where existing insulation is R-11 or less and the new insulation reaches R-30 or more, and rim joist insulation — says there is no air sealing incentive, and adds that a Trade Ally is not required: a contractor with a current Oregon CCB licence can install eligible work and floor insulation can be self-installed, though the rental and Savings Within Reach amounts need an enrolled trade ally. R-30 is described as the incentive’s target, not as the code requirement.
- Why the original was wrong
- Energy Trust’s incentive sheet and its insulation page list floor and rim joist insulation, not air sealing. Chapter 11 of the 2023 ORSC sets a retrofit underfloor requirement of R-25 or R-30 depending on joist depth, so R-30 is the code figure only for new construction. The air sealing point was corrected on the encapsulation page on 14 September and the R-30 point on three pages on 1 September; neither sweep reached this answer.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader could have budgeted around an air sealing incentive that does not exist, or taken a compliant R-25 retrofit for a code failure and assumed any R-30 job was automatically incentive-eligible.
- Source that settles it
-
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Insulation — Residential incentives
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, Chapter 11 — Energy Efficiency (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Regulatory statement #
The encapsulation page told homeowners that doing their own encapsulation fell under Oregon CCB licensing. Oregon exempts owners working on their own property. The same answer’s unsourced claim about voided warranties was removed.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/What it said
“But a code-compliant full encapsulation with mechanical conditioning, rim joist air sealing, and proper foundation vent closures requires construction work that falls under Oregon CCB licensing. Misaligned scope is also common with DIY: most homeowners under-spec the barrier thickness, skip rim joist sealing, and choose the wrong conditioning method, which voids most manufacturer warranties on insulation and dehumidifiers.”
What it says now
The answer now says that ORS 701.010(7) exempts a person working on property they own or on their own residence, except where the work is done as a business with the intent of selling the house, so no CCB licence is needed to encapsulate your own crawl space, and that anyone paid to do it does need one. It keeps the technical cautions that are sourced: a sealed crawl space must be conditioned under R408.3, and a new circuit still needs an electrical permit and inspection. The warranty sentence was removed rather than replaced.
- Why the original was wrong
- Licensing under ORS 701 attaches to a person contracting for work, and the statute’s own exemptions include owners working on their own property. The warranty claim had no source behind it, and warranty terms vary by manufacturer. The error was found while researching the site’s article on doing crawl space work yourself.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner capable of doing the work, or part of it, would have believed it was unlawful without a licence and might have paid for labour they did not need. A reader might also have believed a self-installed barrier or dehumidifier voided warranties generally, which nothing on this site established.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Legislative Assembly, ORS 701.010 — Application of chapter (exemptions), and ORS 701.021 — Licensing requirement (2023 Oregon Revised Statutes)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Regulatory statement #
The encapsulation page said crawl space insulation qualifies for Energy Trust incentives only when a Trade Ally installs it. Licensed non-trade-ally contractors and self-installers can also qualify, which the site’s own rebate guide already said.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/What it said
“Crawlspace floor insulation and rim joist air sealing are eligible measures under Energy Trust of Oregon’s residential program when installed by a Trade Ally contractor on a home served by a participating gas or electric utility.”
What it says now
The answer now names floor and rim joist insulation as the eligible measures, and says a Trade Ally is not the only route: a contractor who is not a trade ally can install eligible work with a current Oregon CCB licence, Energy Trust publishes self-installation guidelines for floor insulation, and some tiers such as Savings Within Reach run through enrolled trade allies.
- Why the original was wrong
- Energy Trust’s 2026 Oregon incentive sheet states that a non-trade-ally contractor can install certain upgrades if they hold a current CCB licence, and Energy Trust’s insulation page publishes self-installation guidance. The incentive sheet lists rim joist insulation, not air sealing. /resources/energy-trust-rebate-2026/ already stated the non-trade-ally route correctly, so the site contradicted itself.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner with a licensed contractor who was not an enrolled trade ally, or planning to install the insulation themselves, could have concluded the incentive was unavailable and either forgone it or changed contractors unnecessarily.
- Source that settles it
-
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Insulation — Residential incentives
- Regulatory statement #
The sump pump cost guide said a new electrical circuit generally requires a licensed electrician. Oregon exempts owners from electrical licensing on their own home, subject to permit and inspection.
Page:
/cost/sump-pump/What it said
“Adding a new electrical circuit generally requires a licensed electrician, so that piece is not a DIY item even when the pump swap itself is.”
What it says now
The answer now says ORS 479.540(1) exempts an owner from electrical licensing for work on their own residential property that is not intended for sale or rent, that this is an exemption from licensing and not from permits, and that in Portland the city still requires a residential electrical permit and an inspection. It advises hiring the circuit out to a licensed electrician for anyone who would not pull that permit and wire to code themselves.
- Why the original was wrong
- ORS 479.540(1) states that a person is not required to obtain a licence to make an electrical installation on residential property they or their immediate family own, where it is not intended for sale, exchange, lease or rent. The City of Portland’s residential electrical permit page confirms homeowners may do their own work under a permit, with conditions.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- An owner-occupant would have understood a new pump circuit to be legally off-limits to them. The more useful caution, that the work still needs a permit and inspection, was missing from the answer entirely.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Legislative Assembly, ORS 479.540 — Exemptions (electrical licensing) (2023 Oregon Revised Statutes, 479.540(1))
- City of Portland, Permitting & Development, Lights, outlets, switches, and service reconnect for residential electrical permits
-
Three foundation waterproofing sub-scope figures, including a hillside worst case of "can exceed $68,000", existed in no pricing model, went through no market validation and carried no source. All three are withdrawn.
Page:
/solutions/foundation-waterproofing/What it said
The cost paragraph and the first FAQ both read: “New construction … adds $3,400 to $7,225 per side of the foundation. Partial scopes (one side of the foundation, or membrane only without drainage) start around $6,800 to $12,750. Hillside lots with shoring, deep excavation, or landscape restoration can exceed $68,000.”
What it says now
Both now describe the same three situations without a figure: new construction is far cheaper than the retrofit, a partial scope lands below the range, and a hillside site can run well above it, driven by the site rather than by the waterproofing. The page says plainly that it publishes no range for the three because it has no defensible model for one. The full-perimeter range, which is modelled and was validated, is unchanged and still imported from pricing.ts.
- Why the original was wrong
- The row’s own $15,000–$38,000 range is in pricing.ts and was corrected on 1 September after checking against adjusted third-party figures. These three were typed into prose, so they were not in the file that check reads and were never checked. $68,000 was close to double the reviewed high end on no stated basis. The standard applied here is the one this site already publishes on its structural repair page: a number invented to look helpful is worse than no number.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner on a hillside lot, or budgeting a partial scope, was given figures that looked researched and were not. The hillside number in particular could have talked someone out of getting a quote at all.
- Price or model figure #
The cost calculator was anchored on a smaller, drier crawl space than the one every published range prices, so describing the site’s own reference project to it returned figures about a third above the range printed on the same page.
Pages:
/tools/cost-calculator/,/,/cost/,/cost/encapsulation/,/cost/vapor-barrier/,/cost/waterproofing/,/cost/sump-pump/What it said
The calculator’s neutral settings were a 500–1,000 sq ft crawl space in “dry” condition, while pricing.ts defines the reference project every published band prices as 1,200–1,500 sq ft and “damp but without standing water at the time of the quote”. A visitor selecting 1,000–1,500 sq ft and “damp” — the reference project itself — therefore had a ×1.3 size multiplier and a +$680 moisture surcharge applied on top of a range that already priced that job. For encapsulation the calculator returned “$13,800 to $16,700” against the $10,100 to $12,325 printed on the same page: no overlap at all.
What it says now
The size and moisture tables are re-anchored so the reference project is the neutral setting and returns the published range unchanged. Relative judgements are preserved — only the zero point moved. The model was lifted out of the widget into src/lib/calculator.ts so it can be reached by a build-time guard, assertCalculatorMatchesReference(), and by nine assertions in the test suite that fail if any service stops reproducing its published range. No figure in the price table changed.
- Why the original was wrong
- The adjustment tables dated to this repository’s first commit and were never reconciled with REFERENCE_PROJECT when that was later formalised. They sat inside an .astro <script> block, out of reach of every build-time guard and of the test suite — the one pricing surface on the site with neither. The drift was therefore invisible for as long as it existed.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner who used the calculator to budget — the tool most likely to be the last thing read before requesting a quote, and rendered on seven pages including the homepage — got a number roughly a third higher than this site’s own published range for the same described job. Some will have concluded the work was unaffordable on a figure the site did not stand behind anywhere else.
- Sourcing or provenance #
The third surviving instance of a provenance claim this site retracted twice in August. The calculator’s own subtitle still told seven pages, including the homepage, that its figures came from contractor data.
Pages:
/,/cost/,/cost/encapsulation/,/cost/vapor-barrier/,/cost/waterproofing/,/cost/sump-pump/,/tools/cost-calculator/What it said
The cost calculator introduced itself with “Answer 6 quick questions for a Portland-area price range based on 2026 contractor data.”
What it says now
“Answer 6 quick questions for a modelled 2026 Portland-area price range”, followed by a link to the published cost methodology.
- Why the original was wrong
- No dataset of Portland contractor quotes exists behind these figures; the 21 August and 28 August corrections established that and removed the identical claim from /cost/, /about/, the homepage and the per-service cost templates. Both sweeps were done by searching pages. The calculator component was not a page, so it was missed twice, and the 28 August entry recorded the class of error as closed while it was still rendering.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader who saw only the calculator had the version of the provenance claim this site had already retracted, on the surface that produces its most concrete-looking number.
-
The crawl space repair hub’s cost FAQ quoted $21,250 — foundation waterproofing’s withdrawn pre-correction low — as the ceiling of a premium crawl space scope, in visible copy and in FAQPage structured data.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/What it said
“Premium combined scopes can reach $17,000 to $21,250.”
What it says now
“A premium encapsulation scope — dehumidifier, closed-cell rim joist foam, full premium materials — runs $14,875 to $20,400.” Every figure in that answer is now read from pricing.ts rather than typed.
- Why the original was wrong
- $21,250 was foundation waterproofing’s low before the 1 September correction replaced it with $15,000 for sitting 12% above the adjusted third-party high. That correction fixed the figure in six places across four files; this was a seventh, in a fifth file, and neither number described a crawl space scope in the first place — $17,000 is basement waterproofing’s premium low.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader budgeting a large crawl space job, or a search engine reading the FAQ markup, took a withdrawn foundation-waterproofing figure as the top of a crawl space range.
- Methodology change #
The cost index told citers that a calculator result and a row in its table “cannot disagree”. They could, and did.
Page:
/data/portland-crawlspace-cost-index/What it said
“The crawl space cost calculator applies these same four drivers to the ranges published here — it reads the identical source file, so a calculator result and a row in this table cannot disagree.”
What it says now
The page now says the calculator is built from the same base ranges and is held by a build-time check to reproducing the published row for the reference project, and states plainly that its six inputs are not the four drivers listed above it, so results move outside a typical band by design as those inputs move away from the reference project.
- Why the original was wrong
- Two things were wrong. The calculator did disagree, by about a third, until the same-day correction above. And the four drivers this page names — housing era, access, moisture, hillside position — were never the calculator’s inputs, which are service, floor area, moisture, access, insulation and timeline.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- This page exists to be cited. Anyone relying on its assurance of internal consistency was relying on something untrue.
- Price or model figure #
The cost guide’s search snippet promised to explain why the site’s figures sit above the national averages. Most of them do not.
Page:
/cost/What it said
The meta description read “… and why these figures sit above the national averages.”
What it says now
“… and how each compares with the national figure.”
- Why the original was wrong
- Of nine modelled services, the claim holds for encapsulation and arguably basement waterproofing. Mold remediation, vapor barrier, sump pump and the corrected foundation waterproofing land at or below comparable published averages; insulation replacement and drainage land roughly in line. A blanket statement of a one-or-two-row fact, in the single most-seen line of text this page produces.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader arriving from a search result had been told, before they clicked, that every figure on the page ran high. Six of nine do not, and the page itself never claimed they did.
- Sourcing or provenance #
A mold FAQ attributed a specific position on bleach to IICRC S520, a paid standard this site does not hold and could not check the wording against.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/What it said
“The IICRC S520 standard does not recommend bleach as a primary remediation agent for residential mold.”
What it says now
The answer now quotes EPA directly — “the use of a chemical or biocide that kills organisms such as mold (chlorine bleach, for example) is not recommended as a routine practice during mold cleanup” — from a document already in this page’s Sources block. The practical advice is unchanged.
- Why the original was wrong
- The substance was right and the attribution was not checkable. Everywhere else this site cites a paid standard it says so and caveats it; this sentence asserted the contents of one as though the text had been read. EPA says the same thing in a document anyone can open.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- None to the advice — a reader who skipped the bleach was correct either way. The failure was one of standard: an authority was named to carry weight the citation could not support.
- Source that settles it
-
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Mold Cleanup in Your Home
- Factual error #
The Aloha page’s opening line named two ZIP codes as the whole of its coverage while the page’s own data box listed three.
Page:
/service-areas/aloha/What it said
“Free in-home inspection across all 97003 and 97006 zip codes.”
What it says now
“Free in-home inspection across the 97003, 97006 and 97007 zip codes.”
- Why the original was wrong
- Aloha’s primaryZips are 97003, 97006 and 97007. The word “all” made a two-ZIP list a completeness claim, and the page contradicted it a few hundred words later.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner in 97007 reading the opening line had reason to think their address was outside the service area.
- Regulatory statement #
Two service pages, the cost guide and the shared card carried on every crawl space service page named a polyethylene thickness as Oregon’s code minimum. Oregon specifies a permeance class, not a thickness. Washington is the jurisdiction that names 6-mil.
Pages:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/,/cost/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/waterproofing/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/drainage/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/sump-pump/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/mold-remediation/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/structural-repair/What it said
“Oregon Residential Specialty Code sets 6-mil polyethylene as the minimum ground cover under a vented crawl space (R408.2)”, with the same page’s FAQ opening “Oregon code requires a 6-mil minimum Class I vapor retarder” and its cost-factor list reading “6-mil meets code minimum”. The encapsulation page’s cost-factor list said “Code minimum is 6-mil”. The cost guide’s vapor-barrier driver said “Upgrading from a code-minimum 10-mil” — naming a different thickness as the minimum again — and the shared sibling card described “Code-compliant 10-mil reinforced barriers” on all eight crawl space service pages. Separately the same service page stated “Oregon code allows the barrier to lap up the wall at least 6 inches”, with its cost-factor list giving wall coverage as “to 6 inches above grade”.
What it says now
The pages that named a thickness as the minimum now state that Oregon’s R408 specifies a Class I vapor retarder — a permeance class, 0.1 perm or less under the model code definition — together with the geometry that goes with it: joints lapped not less than 12 inches and edges run not less than 12 inches up the perimeter wall (R408.2.1), and a continuous sealed Class I vapor retarder in an unvented crawl space (R408.3). They add that 6-mil polyethylene meets that permeance class, which is why it is loosely called the minimum, and that thickness above it buys durability rather than compliance. The shared sibling card, which is where most of the pages listed above carried this, no longer makes a compliance claim at all: it now describes a reinforced barrier sealed and terminated to the stem wall, with no thickness offered as a code test. The new cost page also states where a 6-mil minimum genuinely does apply in Oregon — the radon appendix’s soil-gas retarder (AF103.5.1) in new construction — so the correction is not overstated in the other direction. The 6-inch wall-lap figure was corrected to Oregon’s 12 inches, which R408.2.1 and R408.3 both require and which this site already stated correctly on the encapsulation page and in its code library; 6 inches is the model IRC figure Oregon amended upward.
- Why the original was wrong
- R408 states a performance class and lap-and-termination distances; no mil figure appears in it. This site’s own code library already recorded that in its list of topics the 2026 code-review matrices do not address — “vapor retarder thickness in mils” — so the site was contradicting itself. A 6-mil figure does exist elsewhere in Oregon’s code, in the radon-control appendix, where it applies to the soil-gas retarder in new construction in the counties requiring radon-mitigating construction; that is a different requirement doing a different job and it does not govern the R408 ground cover or a retrofit. The 6-mil ground-cover figure the old wording described belongs to Washington: WAC 51-51-0408 specifies 6-mil black polyethylene overlapped at least 6 inches, which this site quotes correctly on its code tracker. The error was found while drafting the vapor barrier cost page, whose central point is precisely this distinction.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner comparing bids would have read a thickness number as a compliance test and asked the wrong question. Under the old wording a contractor quoting plain 6-mil could be defended as meeting “the code minimum” and one quoting 20-mil could be presented as exceeding code, when both clear the same permeance bar and the difference between them is puncture resistance. The questions that do decide compliance — the 12-inch laps and the 12 inches up the stem wall — went unmentioned in the same sentence. A reader in Washington relying on the Oregon page would also have had the right number for the wrong reason.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2026 Oregon Residential Specialty Code — RMSB review code review matrix (Structural, Fire and Life Safety, Mechanical) (26orsc-matrix.pdf, 17 pages)
- Washington State Legislature, WAC 51-51-0408 — Section R408, Under-floor space (Washington State Residential Code, amended by WSR 23-23-104)
- Factual error #
The Sherwood page called its housing stock the second-newest of the nineteen cities covered here. On the figures printed in the same paragraph it is the fourth-newest.
Page:
/service-areas/sherwood/What it said
A section headed “The newest housing stock on this site, and what that rules out” opened: “Sherwood has the second-newest housing stock of the nineteen cities covered here.”
What it says now
The heading now reads “Among the newest housing stock on this site” and the sentence reads “fourth-newest”. No figure changed: the median year built (1997), the pre-1980 share (18.4%) and the pre-1950 share (4.5%) were correct as published, as was the following sentence naming Happy Valley, Battle Ground and Wilsonville as newer. [Note added 28 September 2026: the 4.5% was not correct as published. It was Sherwood’s share built before 1960; its share built before 1950 is 2.9%, corrected on the city page and in the dataset on 28 September 2026. The ranking this entry fixed rests on the pre-1980 share and is unaffected.]
- Why the original was wrong
- The ranking contradicted the sentence immediately after it, which correctly named three cities with a smaller pre-1980 share: Happy Valley at 13.7%, Wilsonville at 14.4% and Battle Ground at 17.8%, against Sherwood at 18.4%. Three cities ahead of it makes Sherwood fourth, not second.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader comparing cities to judge how likely the expensive pre-war findings are would have placed Sherwood ahead of Wilsonville and Battle Ground on housing age. The numbers needed to rank it correctly were on the page throughout, and the scope advice the section gives does not change.
- Source that settles it
-
- United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates — Year Structure Built (B25034) and Median Year Structure Built (B25035) (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates, tables ACSDT5Y2023.B25034 and ACSDT5Y2023.B25035)
- Factual error #
Two city pages claimed a housing-age ranking that this site’s own published Census dataset contradicts. Neither city holds the position it was given.
Pages:
/service-areas/milwaukie/,/service-areas/oregon-city/What it said
“Milwaukie has the oldest housing stock of the eighteen service-area cities with published figures, and by a wide margin.” And, on the Oregon City page: “Oregon City has one of the oldest housing stocks in the metro alongside Portland’s inner east side.”
What it says now
Milwaukie is now described as the most uniformly old suburb of the eighteen, holding the highest pre-1980 share at 74.1% — the measure it does lead — with the page stating that Portland has the larger share of genuinely pre-war stock at 45.3%. Oregon City is now described as two housing stocks rather than one: a median year built of 1991 and 41.3% pre-1980, alongside 17.5% pre-1950. [Note added 28 September 2026: the pre-1950 figures in this entry — 45.3% for Portland, 37.4% for Milwaukie and 17.5% for Oregon City — were each city’s share built before 1960. The true pre-1950 shares are 34.3%, 16.5% and 13.0%. Portland still leads Milwaukie on that measure, so this correction stands; see the 28 September 2026 entries on the pre-1950 housing share.]
- Why the original was wrong
- Both claims were checked against the Census ACS 2019–2023 five-year estimates already published on this site’s own climate and housing dataset. Portland’s median year built is 1966 against Milwaukie’s 1967, and Portland’s pre-1950 share is 45.3% against Milwaukie’s 37.4%, so Milwaukie does not lead on either measure of age — only on the share built before 1980. Oregon City’s 41.3% pre-1980 places it behind Milwaukie, Portland, Gresham, Aloha and Lake Oswego, so it is not among the oldest in the metro on that measure either. The errors surfaced when the Portland page was rewritten to carry the same figures.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner comparing cities would have drawn the wrong conclusion about what to expect under the house. Housing age is the strongest predictor this site publishes for whether a crawl space has any original ground cover at all, so an Oregon City reader could have expected the pre-war conditions and costs that in fact describe a minority of that city’s stock, and a Milwaukie reader could have assumed a pre-war share that is actually lower than Portland’s.
- Source that settles it
-
- United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates — Year Structure Built (B25034) and Median Year Structure Built (B25035) (ACS 2019–2023 5-year estimates, tables ACSDT5Y2023.B25034 and ACSDT5Y2023.B25035)
- Regulatory statement #
The site said Oregon code requires R-30 for a crawl space floor. That is the new-construction table. A retrofit is governed by a different table that permits R-25.
Pages:
/resources/energy-trust-rebate-2026/,/problems/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/insulation-replacement/What it said
“R-30 also happens to be what Oregon Residential Specialty Code requires for a vented crawlspace floor in the Portland climate zone, so a compliant install and a rebate-eligible install are usually the same install. If a contractor proposes less than R-30 for a vented crawlspace, that is worth questioning on both counts.” The /problems/ cold-floors entry likewise said insulation replacement “brings floor insulation back up to current Oregon code (R-30)”, and the insulation service page stated twice that code “requires a minimum of R-30 floor insulation for vented crawlspaces in the Portland metro climate zone (zone 4C marine)”.
What it says now
All three pages now distinguish the two component tables in Chapter 11 of the 2023 ORSC. Table N1101.1(1) governs new construction and lists underfloors at U-0.033 / R-30. Table N1101.2 governs alterations and repairs to existing buildings and lists U-0.028 / R-30 only where nominal joist depth exceeds 10 inches, with U-0.039 / R-25 where it is 10 inches or less. All three now state that a code-compliant R-25 retrofit can fall below the R-30 Energy Trust requires, and tell the reader to specify R-30 in writing if they intend to claim the incentive.
- Why the original was wrong
- Insulating the floor of a standing house is an alteration, not new construction, so the existing-building table is the one that governs nearly every job this site describes. Typical 2x8 and 2x10 joists sit in that table’s shallow row. The old wording quoted the requirement for the case the reader is least likely to be in.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- Two ways, in opposite directions. A reader following the old advice would have challenged a contractor proposing R-25 as non-compliant, when in most Portland retrofits it is compliant. More expensively, a reader could have accepted an R-25 bid believing compliance and rebate eligibility were the same test, and lost the Energy Trust floor insulation incentive, which requires R-30 or greater.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code, Chapter 11 — Energy Efficiency (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Energy Trust of Oregon, Residential Incentive Information Sheet (Oregon and Washington) (Form PI 320I, version PI 0320I v2026.5 (rev. 260909), effective January 1, 2026)
- Sourcing or provenance #
The diagnostic hub reported a heating-bill outcome from homeowners who had the work done. This site has collected no such reports.
Page:
/problems/What it said
“Homeowners with this scope done have reported meaningfully lower winter heating bills afterward.”
What it says now
The sentence was removed. Neither the cold-floors entry nor the article published alongside it states a heating-bill saving, because there is no measured before-and-after data behind one.
- Why the original was wrong
- The sentence described reported outcomes from past customers. This site is a matching service that has not performed the work, does not hold completed-project outcome data, and had collected no such reports. It read as evidence and was not.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader weighing whether insulation replacement was worth the money would have taken it as outcome evidence from comparable homes. There was none behind it. The saving from insulating a crawl space floor is real but varies too widely with the starting condition, the heating system and the house to be worth a figure this site cannot support.
- Sourcing or provenance #
The August 21 provenance correction missed two templates. The same unsupportable claim survived on the homepage and on all four per-service cost pages for a week.
Pages:
/,/cost/encapsulation/,/cost/sump-pump/,/cost/waterproofing/What it said
The homepage calculator section read “Calibrated to 2026 metro contractor pricing,” with a bullet beneath it reading “Based on current Portland metro contractor pricing.” The shared cost-page template introduced its calculator with “Based on Portland metro 2026 contractor pricing.”
What it says now
All three now describe the figures as modelled estimates of the 2026 Portland metro market rather than as collected contractor pricing, and each links to the published cost methodology. No dollar figure changed.
- Why the original was wrong
- On 21 August the site removed exactly this claim from /cost/ and /about/ after establishing that no dataset of Portland contractor quotes existed. The removal was done page by page, and two shared templates were not searched — so the corrected claim carried on rendering on the highest-traffic page on the site and on every per-service cost page.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- For a week after the site published a methodology page saying its figures were modelled estimates, the homepage told visitors the same figures were based on current contractor pricing. A reader who saw only the homepage had the version the site had already retracted.
- Sourcing or provenance #
The cost guide and the about page both claimed the site’s price ranges came from collected contractor pricing. No such dataset existed.
What it said
/cost/ described its figures as “Real 2026 metro pricing for every service below, sourced from actual contractor ranges — not a generic national estimate.” /about/ said the site’s guides were written and reviewed against, among other sources, “current pricing data from Portland metro contractors,” and added “We update cost ranges annually as contractor pricing shifts.”
What it says now
Both claims were removed. Every range is now labelled a modelled editorial estimate, and a published methodology page sets out how one is built, what reference project it prices, and what it cannot do. The classification is enforced at build time: a range cannot be described as resting on real quotes unless a sample of at least 30 quoted projects is attached to it.
- Why the original was wrong
- It was not true. The figures had been transcribed into the pricing file from prose on the service pages, which was itself written from general market knowledge with no cited origin. The site held no database of Portland quotes — the leads table contained one test record.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader, journalist or agent had reason to treat the ranges as observed market data and to cite them that way. They were, and are, one publisher’s modelled estimates. No dollar figure changed; what changed was the claim about where the dollars came from.
- Sourcing or provenance #
A code article cited the 2021 edition of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code, superseded in October 2023.
Page:
/resources/closed-vs-vented-crawl-space/What it said
The article’s sources listed the Oregon Building Codes Division’s “2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code — Significant Changes” PDF as the authority for its R408 requirements, and stated that the quoted requirements came from that document.
What it says now
The article now cites the 2023 ORSC, the edition in force since October 1, 2023, with the 2021 document retained and labelled as background reading rather than as the governing text. The anticipated 2026 edition is flagged as a review trigger.
- Why the original was wrong
- The 2021 edition was superseded on October 1, 2023. The substantive R408 provisions carried forward, so the published requirements were correct — but the citation pointed at a retired edition, which is the first thing a code official or inspector would catch.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- The requirements a reader took from the page were right. The citation they would have followed to verify them was to a document Oregon no longer enforces.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, Adopted codes online
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code — Significant Changes
- Regulatory statement #
A flat statement that unvented crawl spaces are barred in seven Oregon counties was narrowed to what the source document actually supports.
Page:
/resources/closed-vs-vented-crawl-space/What it said
“Unvented crawl spaces are not allowed in new construction in Baker, Clackamas, Hood River, Multnomah, Polk, Washington and Yamhill counties where radon-mitigating construction is required, unless an approved mechanical ventilation system is provided.”
What it says now
The page now states that in those counties new construction loses the reduced-ventilation allowance for a naturally ventilated crawl space, and that unvented crawl spaces are restricted absent an approved mechanical ventilation system — and it tells the reader in bold to confirm this one against the current code text, because the exact current wording could not be verified against a primary source.
- Why the original was wrong
- The original wording was a stronger and more absolute claim than the Building Codes Division material behind it supported. The correct response to an unverifiable detail is to narrow the claim and say so, not to keep the confident version.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner or builder in one of those counties might have concluded a sealed crawl space was flatly prohibited in new construction. The restriction is real but narrower and more conditional than the sentence implied.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Health Authority, Radon Program
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2021 Oregon Residential Specialty Code — Significant Changes
- Factual error #
The site said framing above 16% moisture content is at risk of decay. That is a mold threshold, not a decay one.
Pages:
/problems/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/What it said
“framing holding above 16% moisture content is at risk of decay, and Portland’s wet season keeps crawlspace wood near that threshold for months at a time.”
What it says now
The pages now state that the USDA Forest Products Laboratory puts serious decay above the fiber saturation point, averaging 30% moisture content, with wood at 20% or below carrying a reasonable margin of safety — and that humid air alone can grow mold on framing, while rotting it takes liquid water.
- Why the original was wrong
- 16% is below both published thresholds. The figure looks like a surface-mold threshold — 16% wood moisture content corresponds roughly to 80% surface relative humidity — that had been relabelled as a decay threshold somewhere upstream.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- It overstated the structural risk of a merely damp crawl space, which in a sales context is exactly the direction a lead-generation site benefits from overstating. A homeowner could have read a normal Portland winter reading as evidence of impending rot.
- Source that settles it
-
- USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Wood Handbook, Chapter 14: Biodeterioration of Wood (General Technical Report FPL-GTR-282 (2021 edition))
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture and Your Home
- Factual error #
The vapor barrier page described Portland wet-season dew points that are physically impossible in this climate.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/vapor-barrier/What it said
“the outdoor air that pours in through the wet season carries dew points in the mid-50s, with stretches above 60 degrees during the big November and December storms.”
What it says now
The passage was removed and the section rewritten around verified National Weather Service precipitation normals, with the summer and winter mechanisms separated rather than merged.
- Why the original was wrong
- A dew point cannot exceed the air temperature, and Portland’s December normal high is about 46°F. Those are summer figures. The mechanism was also backwards: warm-air condensation on cool surfaces is a summer effect in this climate, which another article on the site described correctly — so the site contradicted itself.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader was given a specific, confident, fabricated climate figure as the reason to buy a vapor barrier. The underlying argument for moisture control in Portland stands on the real precipitation data; it did not need the invented number.
- Source that settles it
-
- NOAA National Weather Service, Portland, Portland Climate Book — precipitation normals (1991–2020 climate normals)
- Regulatory statement #
The encapsulation page gave the code’s stem-wall liner dimension as 6 inches. The code requires not less than 12; the 6 inches is the joint overlap.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/What it said
“a Class I vapor retarder … covers the exposed earth, runs up the stem walls at least 6 inches, and is sealed at all seams.”
What it says now
The page now states that the liner’s joints overlap by 6 inches and are sealed or taped (or overlap at least 12 inches where they are not), and that its edges extend not less than 12 inches up the stem wall and are attached and sealed to the stem wall or insulation.
- Why the original was wrong
- Two different requirements in the same clause of ORSC R408.3 had been collapsed into one. The 6-inch figure is the seam overlap; the stem-wall dimension is 12 inches.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- This is a number a homeowner might check a bid against. Someone comparing quotes could have accepted 6 inches of wall coverage as code-compliant when it is half of what the code requires.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Regulatory statement #
Dehumidifier sizing was described as based on cubic footage. Oregon code sizes it by floor area.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/What it said
“a dehumidifier sized to the cubic footage” — in the page body and again in an FAQ answer.
What it says now
Both now state the code figure: dehumidification sized to remove 70 pints per day for every 1,000 square feet of floor area, alongside the two alternative conditioning methods at 1 cfm per 50 square feet.
- Why the original was wrong
- ORSC R408.3 specifies the conditioning requirement by floor area, not by volume. Cubic footage is not the basis the code uses.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A homeowner checking whether a quoted dehumidifier meets code had the wrong unit to check against — and in a crawl space with unusual clearance, volume and floor area give materially different answers.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Regulatory statement #
The cost guide credited code section R408 with setting the floor insulation R-value. R408 does not.
Page:
/cost/What it said
“R408 sets the baseline: R-30 floor insulation and either a vented crawlspace with a Class I vapor [retarder] …”
What it says now
The attribution was removed. R408 governs the under-floor space — ventilation, vapor retarder and the conditioning methods for an unvented crawl space. Insulation R-values are set in the energy chapter, not in R408.
- Why the original was wrong
- A requirement was attributed to the wrong section of the code.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- Anyone citing this site for the source of Oregon’s crawl space insulation requirement would have been sent to a section that does not contain it.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2026 Oregon Residential Specialty Code — Code review matrix, Energy Efficiency, Chapter 11 (26orsc-matrixch11.pdf, 5 pages)
- Sourcing or provenance #
An unsourced claim that R408.3 had been unchanged since the 2014 code cycle was removed.
Page:
/solutions/crawl-space-repair/encapsulation/What it said
A statistic block described R408.3 as covering “Sealed crawlspaces, in its current form since the 2014 cycle.”
What it says now
It now reads “The clause that permits sealed crawlspaces, and sets what one has to include.” The historical claim was dropped.
- Why the original was wrong
- Nothing supported it, and Oregon Building Codes Division records show the 2021 cycle added a conditioning option — so the claim was not merely unsourced but wrong.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader could have concluded the requirements for a sealed crawl space had been stable for a decade and that an older installation was therefore built to today’s rules.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, Codebook history
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Regulatory statement #
FAQs recommended sealed crawl spaces to a Portland audience without mentioning the radon-county restriction that applies across the metro.
Pages:
/,/solutions/crawl-space-repair/What it said
Both FAQ answers said Oregon code permits unvented crawl spaces and that sealed ones typically outperform vented ones in Portland’s climate, with no mention of any county restriction.
What it says now
Both now carry the Oregon exception: in the counties where radon-mitigating construction is required — three of which are the core of the Portland metro — new construction is restricted, absent an approved mechanical ventilation system.
- Why the original was wrong
- An omission rather than a misstatement, but a material one: the recommendation was being made to an audience the exception specifically covers.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- A reader in Multnomah, Washington or Clackamas County was being encouraged toward a configuration that carries a local restriction the page did not mention.
- Source that settles it
-
- Oregon Building Codes Division, 2023 Oregon Residential Specialty Code (ORSC) (2023 edition, based on the 2021 IRC)
- Oregon Health Authority, Radon Program
-
The cost calculator quoted crawl space waterproofing $850 higher than the price table and the service page did.
Pages:
/tools/cost-calculator/,/cost/What it said
The calculator returned $3,825–$7,650 for crawl space waterproofing while the price table and the service page both published $3,825–$6,800 for the same scope.
What it says now
Every figure was consolidated into a single pricing file, and the calculator now derives its ranges from that file rather than holding its own copy. The high end returned to $6,800.
- Why the original was wrong
- A second hand-typed copy of a number. The calculator’s ranges had been entered separately and drifted from the source they were meant to match.
- What a reader would have got wrong
- For an unknown period, a homeowner using the calculator was quoted up to $850 more than the same site’s cost guide quoted for the same work — and had no way to tell which was right.
Other records this site keeps
A correction is one kind of change. Two others are tracked separately because they are not errors — a price that moves with the market and a code edition that advances are both normal, and recording them as corrections would dilute this page.
- Pricing revision history. Every change to the published cost ranges and to how they are produced. If you cited a figure, this is where you check whether it has moved.
- The 2026 Oregon code tracker. What the next code edition changes for crawl spaces, with the stage each item is actually at and the date the sources were last checked. A committee recommendation is not adopted code, and the tracker says so on every row.
- The data section. Every published dataset carries the basis it rests on, its review date, and what it explicitly is not — including a published list of the datasets that are not published, and why.
Connect with a Local Crawlspace Expert
Get matched with a licensed local contractor - Oregon CCB, or Washington L&I across the river - for a free in-home inspection, with no obligation.